A well collapse at Vermont Yankee Nuclear. These accidents were common at the soon-to-be-decommissioned nuclear power plant in Vermont that has provided over a third of its energy in the past. Photograph obtained from Yankee Nuclear public documents.
Lying somewhere between the low-carbon diets of the donkeys and the insatiable appetites of the elephants, nuclear power appeals to many as a panacea for our rampant energy crisis, especially when this panacea comes from the mouth of our Fearless Leader.
The carbon emissions generated by nuclear power are minimal, and with enough money we can construct power behemoths that will each survive for over forty years. Obama recently stated—to the uproarious applause of both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans)—that he plans to “triple loan guarantees required … to finance safe, clean nuclear facilities” in order to “revive the nuclear industry in the United States”. Sounds like a squeaky-clean plan, right?
Wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as “safe, clean nuclear power.” Although nuclear power is safe in the sense that it won’t have you choking on smog every time you walk past the local reactor, the fact remains that there is no existing long-term way to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste systematically. Even the fact that Barack Obama describes it as “safe” suggests an intrinsic fear of the poorly studied dangers of nuclear power: we don’t hear people saying that coal mining is “safe” because we assume that it will not precipitate an explosion or permit the construction of a nuclear warhead.
As of now, our methods of nuclear waste disposal are temporary solutions at best and economic and environmental catastrophes at worst. In order to find out exactly what these “solutions” for disposing of waste are, I went to Steele Hall to interview professor Anthony Faiia, professor of Isotopic Chemistry.
DFP: ““How do nuclear power plants normally dispose of waste?”
Professor Faiia: “After a Uranium fuel rod is spent, they will typically put it in a pool inside the power plant until it cools down a little. Then they will seal it in a cement or iron cask, which they then put outside on the premises of the plants… Some of those isotopes will last millions of years, some of them will last hundreds of thousands of years.”
DFP: “Is there any more centralized way of storing the radioactive waste that would be better?”
Professor Faiia: “The truth is that putting nuclear waste all in one place is not the best way to store it. There is too much risk concentrated in one area. People have suggested storing the waste in places like Yucca Mountain, or even sending it into space. But then there is the [problem of] transportation: what happens if the spacecraft full of Uranium 238 explodes before it reaches space, as a handful of spacecraft have in the past? And all those semi trailers making the pilgrimage to Yucca Mountain or wherever would have to drive on the same roads as many civilians.”
DFP: “Yeah, I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable driving next to an 18-wheeler full of radiation.”
Though there have been no additions to our 104 nuclear facilities in America in over thirty years, Obama’s proposal wants to increase this number to 106 with the construction of two new reactors in Georgia. It seems that political inertia has proven to be no obstacle for Obama’s “Recovery Act”.
Unfortunately for nuclear supporters, a group of anti-nuclear progressives has made itself known just across the river in Vermont. Last week, in the state’s Senate chamber, the long, storied life of one such nuclear reactor was cut short. Since Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant’s (VY) first day of operation in 1972, it has provided over a third of Vermont’s electrical power.
If that seems like a long time, it’s even longer when you consider the 70-year half-life of uranium, or the virtually infinite amount of time before it’s completely gone. For what it’s worth, it appears that our nation’s energy schema has taken two steps back and one important step forward.
In front of an audience of over 100 anti-nuclear citizens, who had been staying in hotels in the capitol over the course of the 3-day hearing, a vote of 26-4 overruled Vermont Yankee’s license to operate, effective in 2012. The event was covered in the New York Times, The Boston Globe, ABC, and even The Guardian in the UK. A public ruling to decommission a power plant has not taken place in the US in over 20 years, as such legislation is usually considered by members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
A loophole opened up in 2002 when VY accepted a contract according to which it deferred to the authority of the Public Service Board of Vermont (PSB) in exchange for an increase in power output by 20%. This loophole was further exploited when lobbyists helped to pass Act 160 in 2006, which stated that all nuclear power plants in Vermont needed a “certificate of public good” from the PSB in order to renew their licenses, making it even harder for VY to extend its operation.
And now, what appeared to Vermont Yankee as an understandable bargain seems to have derailed the future of the plant. Thanks to the incremental progress of so many anti-nuclear activists, a slew of once-futile testimonies against the plant made adequate ammunition to take down the giant in a battle akin to David and Goliath.
Citing a water tower collapse and a transformer fire in the last decade—and, more recently, evidence that Yankee not only denied the presence of underground drainage pipes, but also denied tests that found that these pipes had leaked traces of radioactive tritium into our very own Connecticut river—the lobbyists were able to corner Vermont Yankee defendants.
Despite the attempts of VY and Entergy (VY’s parent organization, whose slogan, ironically enough, is “the power of the people”) at corporate coercion, the chances of turning over the Vermont Legislature’s vote are slim.
Bob Walker, director of the Sustainable Energy Resource Group (SERG), reiterated in a phone interview with the DFP that “the Senate’s decision was not dependent on the economics of the situation so much as the issue of trust, or a lack thereof, in Vermont Yankee.”
Other activist groups are not so confident. One of the main groups responsible for the long-standing battle against VY is the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). In order to look deeper into the fears and ambitions of the activists, I interviewed James Moore, the Director of the Clean Energy Program at VPIRG.
DFP: “Will you be expecting any amount of “corporate coercion” on the part of Vermont Yankee and Entergy to reverse the Senate’s decision?”
J.M.: “Yes, absolutely. The main problem that we’re facing is that we have a [senate] election in November. [In order to renew its contract], Entergy needs permission from the state legislature, and the concern is that they could try to buy votes in the next legislature and overturn what has been accomplished.”
DFP: “What can we do to prevent that from happening?”
J.M.: “Well, we can work to make sure that the people who vote for legislators are educated. If we can expose what is going on enough, I am sure the voters will support closure [of VY].”
DFP: “I heard the figure for decommissioning VY is over $1 billion. Why is it that decommissioning costs so much?”
J.M.: “Well, in that billion-dollar number there are two things. The first is cleaning up the building, getting rid of contamination, digging up foundations, etc. The second part is keeping the radioactive waste on the premises until the federal government comes in and takes it away. That could be decades, since we have no standardized solution for getting rid of that waste in this country.”
DFP: “But Vermont’s annual budget is only about $1 billion, and the state is already in debt. Who is going to pay that cost?”
J.M.: “That is actually a highly debated question. When Entergy bought VY in 2002, it promised to be responsible for the full decommissioning of the plant, and all the clean-up costs. Now they are trying to go back on their promise by deferring the cost to their limited-liability subsidiaries, which presumably would not pay the full price. We don’t want the big parent corporation in Louisiana to take all the profits and then walk away from the liability.”
Although Vermont Yankee has its fair share of problems, it is neither the oldest nor the most decrepit of the 104 nuclear reactors in our country. There is a rising trend of similar management and infrastructure problems in nuclear power plants in the US: 27 of them are still currently leaking radioactive waste.
Even if these leaks have not yet been connected to any widespread health concerns, as is the case with VY, this is no proof that nuclear power is safe. The effects of radiation are long term and sometimes unknown for decades, as was the case after Russia’s Chernobyl incident.
Nor does this take into account the latent potential for weaponizing nuclear material at any nuclear plant. In addition, we must remember that uranium is by no means an unlimited or cheap resource.
In the face of such daunting odds, the success of progressives in Vermont should serve as a model for energy legislation in all states. On our side of the Connecticut River, for example, is Seabrook Nuclear power plant.
Although Seabrook is one of the newest plants in the country, New Hampshire may look to what is happening in Vermont and decide that as Seabrook gets older, New Hampshire must be sure to have a voice in its fate.
Hopefully, President Obama will hear the cries of Vermonters and begin to change his energy policies. There is simply no getting around it: nuclear power is dangerous, unsafe, and an unsustainable long-term energy source.
If Barack Obama must continue to build new plants, we progressives need to make sure to resist by shutting down old plants, exposing corporations like Entergy for their lies, and looking for alternative sources of energy.
